A Short Vietnamese Language Program: Training Course and Research Vehicle

Fiks, Alfred I.

doi:10.1515/iral.1966.4.1-4.235

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Beside him, there is a variety of authors past and present who recommend bilingual structure drills, although their recommendations have not become mainstream philosophy (Politzer 1965, Fiks 1966, Valdman 1966, Butzkamm 1973, Alexander/Butzkamm 1983, Ericsson 1990). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between drill and discourse – The generative principle and the problem of learning transfer

Butzkamm¹

2000

IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article describes a series of drills which apply the generative principle, i.e. the human capacity to generate an infinite number of utterances from a finite grammatical competence. Traditional pattern drills focused exclusively on the automatization of structures. They were found wanting because fluent sentence variations did not transfer easily into communicative fluency. The solution proposed here is a series of drills with a dual focus: a focus on form and a focus on content. Structures are manipulated, but at the same time ideas are played with and the semantic potential of a given structure is explored. For this to happen, mother tongue cues work best. However, as the exercise develops, the teacher can step back and let the pupils make up their own sentences so that the drill becomes monolingual. Examples are taken from English classes in German secondary schools. These drills strike a balance between a powerful communicative principle and an equally powerful generative principle, which are seen here not as opposing but as complementary forces. The article has been inspired by exercises common in previous centuries as well as by modern ideas which, so far, have yet to become a part of mainstream thinking.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%